CABESTANY (66) 17.03.1997

GEIPAN continues to publish its entire archive on www.geipan.fr, including older cases originally classified A, B, C or D that are now being reassessed solely to improve the conclusions. New technical tools (software) and investigative experience gained over the years sometimes lead to new observations or even a change in classification. The Cabestany account concerns a silent, orange dome-shaped light moving on a straight course towards Spain. This case, previously classified D and named MONTPELLIER (34) 1997, is among those recently reassessed. It turns out to combine 4 separate sightings at different times, each admitting a different explanation (see the investigation report). GEIPAN’s original perception of strangeness resulted from failing to recognise that both the observations and the phenomena were multiple. Gendarmerie report 019/97 shows that the Gendarmerie initiated its investigation after a regional newspaper article on 18 March 1997 reported an unidentified aerospace phenomenon (UAP) seen above Montpellier by several airline pilots on the morning of 17 March. GEIPAN has since explained that morning sighting as a probable meteoroid atmospheric entry; see [ATMOSPHERIC ENTRY] (REG) OCCITANIE, PACA (OCC, PAC) 17.03.1997. The Gendarmerie’s search for additional witnesses to the morning event collected the present accounts of several evening sightings. The press coverage and active investigation may have made the evening witnesses regard their sightings as more unusual; without that context, they might not all have reported them spontaneously. The Maugio (34) T1, Cabestany (66) and Montpellier (34) sightings have little inherent strangeness. Only Maugio (34) T2 has an initially unusual aspect requiring detailed analysis. The MAUGIO (34) 17.03.1997 T1 account strongly suggests a satellite misidentification. The MONTPELLIER (34) 17.03.1997 account very strongly suggests an astronomical misidentification: Sirius’s position closely matches that of the UAP. The CABESTANY (66) 17.03.1997 account probably concerns a Mylar balloon reflecting streetlights beneath its path. This conclusion rests on the following: - The balloon’s actual shape cannot be seen at night, only its reflections. The curved shape initially seen with the naked eye is consistent with a possible round or oval balloon revealed by ground lights reflected on its surface. Using binoculars, the witness subsequently distinguished several dome-shaped luminous patches, corresponding to separate reflections from several streetlights that could not be resolved with the naked eye. - Globe-type streetlights that send light upwards are known to exist in nearby housing developments. - The trajectory has steady speed and altitude and agrees with the prevailing wind direction. - Such a balloon could have been used for a private celebration, such as a birthday, during the week or the preceding weekend; Mylar balloons last a long time. The MAUGIO (34) 17.03.1997 T2 account probably concerns an MD-80 aircraft with its distinctive lighting system, just after take-off from Montpellier airport. This conclusion rests particularly on the following: - Distance and darkness prevented the witness from seeing the aircraft’s actual shape. Only its powerful landing lights were visible. Their description matches the MD-80: point-like lights at the “extremities” and a rectangular central light. The oval shape mentioned in the photograph in the official report and in the witness statement is therefore more likely an interpretation of something unexplained. - The reported colours are normally used in aviation, although the witness described the initial lights as “blue-white” and blue is not used in aviation. They may, however, have been predominantly white with a blue tint. - Repeated switching of the landing lights on and off may have reflected the pilot’s need to check visibility during and after the turn. The MD-80 allows switching between the 2 types of lights described. - Its particular lighting system, with most wingtip lights close together and flashing red anti-collision lights on the fuselage, combined with distance and changes in heading, could explain the colour changing from white (the initially dominant headlights aimed at the witness) through orange (mixed colours) to red (dominant red anti-collision lights), and why no flashing was visible. - The UAP’s positions, movements and trajectory fully match a radar-recorded Air Liberté aircraft that had just taken off from Montpellier airport and was turning and climbing simultaneously to take up its heading towards Paris Orly. Air Liberté had only just begun using MD-80s on this route. - The considerable viewing distance and wind blowing towards the aircraft explain the absence of sound. - Although familiar with the area, the witness had never seen an MD-80 taking off. This may explain his initial sense of strangeness, subsequently heightened when his switching on his torch happened to coincide with the aircraft’s nose landing lights coming on. The evidential strength of each account is moderate or low because the times, durations and sky positions are imprecise. Nevertheless, they are sufficient for conclusions given how little strangeness remains after analysis. GEIPAN classifies the cases as follows: - MAUGIO (34) 17.03.1997 T1: B, probable satellite observation. - MAUGIO (34) 17.03.1997 T2: B, probable observation of an aircraft taking off. - CABESTANY (66) 17.03.1997: B, probable Mylar balloon observation. - MONTPELLIER (34) 17.03.1997: A, very probable observation of a star, specifically Sirius.